On 10 Oct 1998 21:53:52 GMT, johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 16:05:59 GMT, gmc0 at ix.netcom.com (George M.
>Carter) wrote:
>>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>Snip...
>>>>>O.k., I'll start with V.A. Cooperative Study 298. The patients were
>>>randomized into two treatment arms: the first received 1500mg(that's
>>>FIFTEEN HUNDRED, ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED, MC MILLIGRAMS OF AZT. I'm
>>>sure being as dismissive as you are you'll state that, "oh, that was a
>>>long time ago", we've learned that much lower daily dosages had the
>>>same effect". I submit to you and your ilk that if this study is only
>>>one of many, try to imagine what individual practitioners were
>>>prescribing for individual situations. May I make one point very
>>>clear, the American Heart Association recommendation for subacute
>>>bacterial endocarditis prophylaxis in susceptible patients is 2 grams
>>>of amoxycillin one hour prior to dental surgery. Why is this
>>>relevant? I have not encountered one physician as of this date that
>>>knows this. They are, every one of them, prescribing the wrong
>>>amounts and types of drugs for this situation. If they can screw up
>>>for this, why is it so difficult for you meatheads to understand that
>>>they would be inconsistent in their treatment of AIDS and HIV? You
>>>don't treat patients, you treat data, and, you do it poorly. jb
>>>>All you're doing with this post is giving me the cold horrors about
>>just how fucked up dentists are as a class.
>> Or maybe it's just you.
Dear George, why didn't you comment on this message? Did you even
take the time to check it out for accuracy? Does your dentist mind
seeing known HIV+ and AIDS patients? You claim that only you
Dogmaheads know what's going on. I kind of like Celia Farber's quote:
"the truth is like an airplane, sooner or later it's got to land
somewhere". Let's hope it's right on top of your head. jb
>Maybe, but then most dentists, I would hazard to say, do not want
>anyone in their practice who is a known HIV + or AIDS patient. I'm
>not in that category. I treat people in my practice without regard to
>prejudice of color, religion, disease state, money, sex, or anything
>else you could list, that is, except assholes, which you and several
>of your compadres are included in, thus would be excluded from my
>practice. That's your loss. If you don't believe me, that most
>dentists are scared shitless about treating you guys, take a look at
>the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court involving a
>decision in favor of an HIV + patient whose dentist refused to do
>routine operative dentistry on her in his office and INSISTED on doing
>her dentistry in the hospital where "it would be safer for her". That
>would not have happened in my practice. So, maybe you're right, maybe
>we do have a group of dentists that could be classified as ignorant on
>the potential for transmissibility of HIV and AIDS in the dental
>office. You certainly can't blame that of me, dipshit. jb
>>>>The dose of AZT dropped to 600 mg/day very rapidly. You're simply
>>making something based on one old study
>>which is what I told you that you would claim
> to try to justify your rank
>>stupidity. The fact is that people are getting 600 mg/day of AZT, for
>>those who are taking it. The last time I heard of higher doses was
>>among those with dementia.
>Oh, have you been taking it that long?
>>>>In any event, speaking of dementia, it was your idiotic statement that
>>people now were taking LESS than the former commonly prescribed dose.
>I gave you a study, I can give you others, ergo, it wasn't idiotic.
>You simply proved my point, that is, that higher amounts were given in
>the past. Do you want to keep going with this or put it to rest?
>>This has not been the case for many years.
>Define "many years", mr handwaver(or is it Mrs?, I don't want to
>offend you any further than need be) jb
>>>>I'm sorry you're having difficulty facing the fact that you're an
>>asshole.
>>>> George M. Carter
>>>>>